Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status
The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA .
DETAILED ACTION
Priority
1. Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file.
Information Disclosure Statement
2. The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 03/10/25 has been entered. The submission is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97. Accordingly, the information disclosure statement is being considered by the examiner.
Drawings
3. The drawings filed on 03/10/25. These drawings are acceptable.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112
4. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b):
(b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention.
The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph:
The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention.
5. Claims 1-17, rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant regards as the invention.
The following wordings “a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit”, “a surface roughness calculation unit”, “a shape calculation unit”, “multi-focus composite image generation unit”, “a root square slope estimation unit”, “an arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit”, “a surface property aspect ratio estimation unit”, “a glossiness estimation unit”, “scratch determination unit”, render the claims indefinite because the wordings are not defined by the claim, and the specification does not provide a standard definition or structure for ascertaining the requisite degree that one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, the claims are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor, or for pre-AIA the applicant, regards as the invention.
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Interpretation - 35 USC § 112
6. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph:
An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof.
7. Claim limitations “a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit”, “a surface roughness calculation unit”, “a provisional value”, “fitting condition”, “a shape calculation unit”, “multi-focus composite image generation unit”, “a root square slope estimation unit”, “an arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit”, “a surface property aspect ratio estimation unit”, “a glossiness estimation unit”, “scratch determination unit” has/have been interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because it uses/they use a generic placeholder “unit” coupled with functional language “acquisition”, “to receive”, “to calculate”, “to generate”, “estimating”, “to determinate”, respectively, without reciting sufficient structure to achieve the function. Furthermore, the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier.
Since the claim limitation(s) invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, claim(s) 1-17 has/have been interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification that achieves the claimed function, and equivalents thereof.
A review of the specification shows that the following appears to be the corresponding structure described in the specification for the 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph limitation:
“a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit” - acquires information of the angular distribution of the intensity of the scattered light from the intensity of the scattered light measured by the light receiving element 61 and control information for the movement of the light receiving element 61 by the drive control unit 77, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0123]). Therefore, a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit could be considered as a portion of a computer or a processor.
“a surface roughness calculation unit” - calculates a surface roughness index of the object 30 and outputs the calculation result to the output unit 16, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0047]) - obtains a calculated Rq value for the object 30 whose surface roughness is to be measured (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [00135]). Therefore, a surface roughness calculation unit could be considered as a computer or a processor.
“a provisional value” - The provisional values determined here are preset as, for example, initial values, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [00063]).
“fitting condition” - a determination threshold value (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [00084]).
“a shape calculation unit” – applies the spatial coding method to the plurality of multi-focus composite images 43 to calculate shape information (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0052]). However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, a shape calculation unit could be considered as a processor.
“multi-focus composite image generation unit” - generates a plurality of single-focus images from the raw image acquired by the raw image acquisition unit 11 and combines the plurality of single-focus images to generate a multi-focus composite image. However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, multi-focus composite image generation unit could be considered as a computer or a processor.
“a root square slope estimation unit” – (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0133]; Figure 18, element 72). However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, a surface roughness calculation unit could be considered as a computer or a processor.
“an arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit” – the arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit 73 calculates Ra from the calculated Rq value obtained by the surface roughness calculation unit 15 and Equation (12) to calculate the estimated Ra value, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0135-0136]; Figure 20, element 73). However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, an arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit could be considered as a calculator.
“a surface property aspect ratio estimation unit” - calculates the surface property aspect ratio Str based on the second relationship 74A and the calculated values of the surface correlation lengths Lc in the two directions obtained by the surface roughness calculation unit 15 for the object 30, whose surface roughness is to be measured, to calculate an estimated Str value, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0147]; Figure 20, element 73). However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, a surface property aspect ratio estimation unit could be considered as a computer or a processor.
“a glossiness estimation unit” - performs simple regression analysis in which the calculated Rq value is used as an explanatory variable and the measured glossiness value is used as an objective variable, (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0150]). However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, a glossiness estimation unit could be considered as chip which includes a processor to perform a regression analysis.
“a scratch determination” - determines whether a scratch is present or absent (Applicant’s Pub. No. 2025/0207913, [0159, 0174]). However, there is no structure for this unit in the specification. Therefore, a scratch determination could be considered as a processor.
If applicant wishes to provide further explanation or dispute the examiner’s interpretation of the corresponding structure, applicant must identify the corresponding structure with reference to the specification by page and line number, and to the drawing, if any, by reference characters in response to this Office action.
If applicant does not intend to have the claim limitation(s) treated under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112 , sixth paragraph, applicant may amend the claim(s) so that it/they will clearly not invoke 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, or present a sufficient showing that the claim recites/recite sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function to preclude application of 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph.
For more information, see MPEP § 2173 et seq. and Supplementary Examination Guidelines for Determining Compliance With 35 U.S.C. 112 and for Treatment of Related Issues in Patent Applications, 76 FR 7162, 7167 (Feb. 9, 2011).
Appropriate correction is required.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
8. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action:
A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102 of this title, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made.
9. Claim(s) 1, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0185178) in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0354947). Hereafter “Miyoshi” and “Kondo”.
Regarding Claim(s) 1, Miyoshi discloses a surface roughness calculation device (figure 1 device 100) comprising:
a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit that receives scattered light from a surface of an object and that calculates a first scattered light intensity distribution from a light reception result (figure 2, signal processing part 240 is not different from a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit. A first scattered light intensity distribution is detected by the first detector 231a. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above); and
a surface roughness calculation unit that calculates a surface roughness index of the object, ([0012]. Figure 2, combination of elements 240, 250, 290, 270 is not different from a surface roughness calculation unit. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above),
a second scattered light intensity distribution obtained by calculation unit using the provisional value of the surface roughness index ([0012]; figure 2, signal processing part 240 is not different from a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit. “an inspection range of the surface roughness inspection in a partial layout of a part of the whole layout of the pattern corresponding to the periphery of the extracted measurement coordinate” is not different from provisional value of the surface roughness index. A second scattered light intensity distribution is detected by the second detector 231b. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above), and the scattered light intensity distribution satisfy a first fitting condition, (abstract; [0012, 0134]. Limit threshold or inspection range is not different from a provisional value. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above).
determines the provisional value of the surface roughness index when the first fitting condition is satisfied as a value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object (abstract; [0012, 0134]. Limit threshold or inspection range is not different from a provisional value. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above).
However, Miyoshi does not teach the surface roughness calculation unit corrects a provisional value of the surface roughness index until a scattered light intensity distribution obtained. Kondo teaches the surface roughness calculation unit corrects a provisional value of the surface roughness index until a scattered light intensity distribution obtained ([0049]; Figure 2. The correction coefficient k functions to correct the surface roughness calculated from the intensity of scattered light to the surface roughness measured by the AFM). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Miyoshi by correcting a provisional value of the surface roughness index in order to have the surface roughness that is optically obtained by the correction coefficient k comes close to an actual roughness (Kondo, [0049]).
10. Claim(s) 2, 3, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2009/0185178) in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0354947), further in view of Nemoto Kazunori et al. (JP 2012068264). Hereafter “Miyoshi”, “Kondo”, “Nemoto”. (Please see attached files for reference of Nemoto).
Regarding Claim(s) 2, Miyoshi as modified by Kondo, teach a surface roughness calculation device according to claim 1 as stated above except for a raw image acquisition unit that acquires a raw image captured by a light field camera; and an output unit. Further, Miyoshi teaches an output unit (figure 2, information display unit 270 is not different from an output unit). However, Miyoshi and Kondo do not teach a raw image acquisition unit that acquires a raw image captured by a light field camera. Nemoto teaches a raw image acquisition unit that acquires a raw image captured by a light field camera (page 2, lines 29-31. CCD is not different from a light field camera receiving a raw image). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Miyoshi and Kondo by having camera in order to capture images of the sample surface (Nemoto, page 2, lines 29-31).
Regarding Claim(s) 3 Miyoshi as modified by Kondo teach a surface roughness calculation device according to claims 1 and 2, as stated above except for the surface roughness calculation unit outputs a result of the calculated surface roughness index to the output unit. Miyoshi further discloses outputs a result of the calculated surface roughness index to the output unit (page 7, lines 24-27).
11. Claim(s) 8-9, 12, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. (Pub. No. 2009/0185178) in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0354947), further in view of Igarashi Yoshitaka (JP 2022187772). Hereafter “Miyoshi”, “Kondo”, “Igarashi”. (Please see attached files for reference of Igarashi).
Regarding Claim(s) 8, Miyoshi in view of Kondo teach a surface roughness calculation device according to claim 1 as stated above except for the scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit acquires, as the first scattered light intensity distribution, a measurement result of an angular distribution of intensity of scattered light from an incident position when a laser beam is incident on the surface of the object. Miyoshi further teaches the scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit acquires, as the first scattered light intensity distribution (figure 2, signal processing part 240 is not different from a scattered light intensity distribution acquisition unit. A first scattered light intensity distribution is detected by the first detector 231a. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above). Igarashi teaches a measurement result of an angular distribution of intensity of scattered light from an incident position when a laser beam is incident on the surface of the object (Abstract; Page 2, lines 22-35). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Miyoshi in view of Kondo by having an angular distribution of intensity of scattered light in order to calculate surface roughness efficiently (Igarashi, Abstract; Page 2, lines 22-35).
Regarding Claim(s) 9 Miyoshi in view of Kondo further in view of Igarashi teach a surface roughness calculation device according to claims 1, 8, as stated above except for the surface roughness calculation unit uses provisional values of a root mean square roughness and a surface correlation length as the provisional value of the surface roughness index, and determines the provisional values of the root mean square roughness and the surface correlation length when the first fitting condition is satisfied as the value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object. Miyoshi further teaches the first fitting condition is satisfied as the value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object (abstract; [0012, 0134]. Limit threshold or inspection range is not different from a provisional value. Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above). Igarashi teaches the surface roughness calculation unit uses provisional values of a root mean square roughness and a surface correlation length as the provisional value of the surface roughness index, and determines the provisional values of the root mean square roughness and the surface correlation length, (page 2, lines 36-48; Page 3, lines 1-32; Pages 5-6). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Miyoshi in view of Kondo by having a root mean square roughness and a surface correlation length in order to calculate the roughness index of the surface (Igarashi, page 2, lines 36-48; Page 3, lines 1-32; Pages 5-6).
Regarding Claim(s) 12, Miyoshi in view of Kondo and Igarashi teach a surface roughness calculation device according to claim 1 as stated above except for an arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit that multiplies the value of the root mean square roughness Rq calculated for the object by the surface roughness calculation unit by (2/π)1/2 to estimate an arithmetic mean roughness Ra. It is obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention was made to use the device of Miyoshi in view of Kondo and Igarashi in application with a function of arithmetic mean roughness estimation unit to estimate the arithmetic mean roughness Ra value; in order to estimate with sufficiently high accuracy by the surface roughness calculation device. (Please see 112(b)(f) in paragraphs 4-7 above). Several facts have been relied upon from the personal knowledge of the examiner about which the examiner took Official Notice. Applicant must seasonably challenge well known statements and statements based on personal knowledge when they are made by the Board of Patent Appeals and Interferences. In re Selmi, 156 F.2d 96, 70 USPQ 197 (CCPA 1946); In re Fischer, 125 F.2d 725, 52 USPQ 473 (CCPA 1942). See also In re Boon, 439 F.2d 724, 169 USPQ 231 (CCPA 1971) (a challenge to the taking of judicial notice must contain adequate information or argument to create on its face a reasonable doubt regarding the circumstances justifying the judicial notice). If applicant does not seasonably traverse the well-known statement during examination, then the object of the well-known statement is taken to be admitted prior art. In re Chevenard, 139 F.2d 71, 60 USPQ 239 (CCPA 1943). A seasonable challenge constitutes a demand for evidence made as soon as practicable during prosecution. Thus, applicant is charged with rebutting the well-known statement in the next reply after the Office action in which the well-known statement was made.
12. Claim(s) 17, is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Miyoshi et al. (Pub. No. 2009/0185178) in view of Kondo et al. (U.S. Pub. No. 2015/0354947), further in view of Igarashi Yoshitaka (JP 2022187772), further in view of Kataoka Toshihiko (JP 2002365234 A). Hereafter “Miyoshi”, “Kondo”, “Igarashi”, “Kataoka”. (Please see attached files for references of Igarashi and Kataoka).
Regarding Claim(s) 17, Miyoshi in view of Kondo and further in view of Igarashi, teach a surface roughness calculation device according to claim 1 as stated above except for a scratch determination unit, wherein the scratch determination unit compares at least one of a value of the rootmean square roughness Rq and a value of the surface correlation length Lc determined by the surface roughness calculation unit and an integrated value of a surface shape autocovariance calculated from the values of the root mean square roughness Rq and the surface correlation length Lc with a determination threshold value, and determines whether a scratch is present or absent based on a comparison result. As indicated in claim 9, Igarashi teaches the surface roughness calculation unit uses provisional values of a root mean square roughness and a surface correlation length as the provisional value of the surface roughness index, and determines the provisional values of the root mean square roughness and the surface correlation length, (page 2, lines 36-48; Page 3, lines 1-32; Pages 5-6). Kataoka teaches the scratch determination (page 8, lines 39-46. Figure 8). It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the invention was made to modify Miyoshi in view of Kondo and Igarashi by having scratch determination in order to detect scratches in all directions on the sample surface (Kataoka, page 8, lines 39-46).
Allowable Subject Matter
13. Claims 4-7, 10-11, 13-16, are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims, and if overcome 112(b)(f) set forth in this Office action.
14. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: there was no prior art found by the examiner that suggested modification or combination with the cited art so as to satisfy the combination of all the limitations in claims 4, 10, 13, 14.
15. As claim 4, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a surface roughness calculation device correcting a provisional value of the surface roughness index until a second scattered light intensity distribution obtained by calculation using the provisional value of the surface roughness index and the first scattered light intensity distribution satisfy a first fitting condition, and determines the provisional value of the surface roughness index when the first fitting condition is satisfied as a value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object; wherein a multi-focus composite image generation unit that combines a plurality of single- focus images generated from a raw image obtained by imaging the surface of the object with a light field camera to generate a multi-focus composite image; applying a spatial coding method or a phase shift method to the multi-focus composite image to calculate shape information of the surface of the object; and calculating the first scattered light intensity distribution based on a light field obtained from the raw image obtained by the light field camera; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 4.
16. As claim 10, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a surface roughness calculation device correcting a provisional value of the surface roughness index until a second scattered light intensity distribution obtained by calculation using the provisional value of the surface roughness index and the first scattered light intensity distribution satisfy a first fitting condition, and determines the provisional value of the surface roughness index when the first fitting condition is satisfied as a value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object; a measurement result of an angular distribution of intensity of scattered light from an incident position; determining the provisional values of the root mean square roughness Rq and the surface correlation length Lc when the first fitting condition is satisfied; and the surface correlation lengths Lc calculated for a plurality of specimens by the surface roughness calculation unit and values of the root mean square slopes Rdq measured for the plurality of specimens, and estimates a root mean square slope Rdq of the object from the first relationship and values of the root mean square roughness Rq and the surface correlation length Lc calculated for the object by the surface roughness calculation unit; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 and 9 and 10.
17. As claim 13, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a surface roughness calculation device correcting a provisional value of the surface roughness index until a second scattered light intensity distribution obtained by calculation using the provisional value of the surface roughness index and the first scattered light intensity distribution satisfy a first fitting condition, and determines the provisional value of the surface roughness index when the first fitting condition is satisfied as a value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object; a measurement result of an angular distribution of intensity of scattered light from an incident position; determining the provisional values of the root mean square roughness Rq and the surface correlation length Lc when the first fitting condition is satisfied; the surface property aspect ratio estimation unit stores a second relationship between values of the surface correlation lengths Lc in two directions perpendicular to each other and a value of a surface property aspect ratio Str calculated from the values of the surface correlation lengths Lc in the two directions perpendicular to each other, which have been calculated for a plurality of specimens by the surface roughness calculation unit, and the values of the surface property aspect ratios Str measured for the plurality of specimens, and estimates a surface property aspect ratio Str of the object from the second relationship and values of the surface correlation lengths Lc in the two directions perpendicular to each other which have been calculated for the object by the surface roughness calculation unit; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 and 9 and 13.
18. As claim 14, the prior art of record taken alone or in combination, fails to disclose or render obvious a surface roughness calculation device correcting a provisional value of the surface roughness index until a second scattered light intensity distribution obtained by calculation using the provisional value of the surface roughness index and the first scattered light intensity distribution satisfy a first fitting condition, and determines the provisional value of the surface roughness index when the first fitting condition is satisfied as a value of the surface roughness index of the surface of the object; a measurement result of an angular distribution of intensity of scattered light from an incident position; determining the provisional values of the root mean square roughness Rq and the surface correlation length Lc when the first fitting condition is satisfied; wherein the glossiness estimation unit stores a third relationship between values of the root mean square roughnesses Rq calculated for a plurality of specimens by the surface roughness calculation unit and values of glossinesses measured for the plurality of specimens, and estimates a glossiness of the object from the third relationship and a value of the root mean square roughness Rq calculated for the object by the surface roughness calculation unit; in combination with the rest of the limitations of claims 1 and 8 and 9 and 14.
Fax/Telephone Information
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TRI T TON whose telephone number is (571)272-9064. The examiner can normally be reached on 8am-4pm.
If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Michelle Iacoletti can be reached on (571)270-5789. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
June 30, 2026
/Tri T Ton/
Primary Examiner Art Unit 2877
Prosecution Insights